cvs commit: src/share/examples/etc make.conf

[Tom Rhodes]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:33:43 -0500
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 February 2005 05:04 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:10:12PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 23 February 2005 03:19 am, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 06:04:43PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > > > > >  Log:
> > > > > >  Add 'nocona' to the list of Intel ia64 CPUs and k8 to the AMD
> > > > > > CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nocona is not an ia64 processor. It's a xeon (=ia32) processor with
> > > > > EM64T.
> > > >
> > > > It isn't "with EM64T".  Or was the i386 an "80286 with registers" as
> > > > something special?  A Nocona is a 64-bit Xeon.
> > >
> > > Actually, a 386 was a 286 with paging at first. :)  A Xeon is certainly
> > > an ia32 processor (esp. when compared to ia64), and just as paging was an
> > > extension to the protected mode already present in the 286, one can think
> > > of long mode as an extension of 386 protected mode with PAE.
> >
> > Yes, and was there a huge marketing compain to call it "286 with Paging
> > Technology"?  No.  It was simply the "i386".
> >
> > > Take a chill pill,
> > > his e-mail didn't even contain the word "AMD" and you still flew off the
> > > handle.
> >
> > Sorry, didn't realize I needed to see the world "AMD" in an email to be
> > able to respond to an email.  It is ridiculous the amount of confusion
> > Intel is causing EM64T users.
> 
> I think you are seeing Intel marketing demons behind every shadow when they 
> actually aren't there all the time and jumping down people's throats at the 
> mere mention of anything related to Intel + amd64.  The sky is not falling, 
> please slow down and calm down.

Ok, I've seen back and forth discussion about marketing this
and CPUs that.  What I want to know: is the current version
correct?  Does it make people happy?  :)

-- 
Tom Rhodes